Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Mon 11th Jan 2010 15:57 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 403738
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
??? The same thing gets done for those platforms. Have you never used a ports system on OS X, or various native FOSS ports?
No I haven't used a ports system on OSX because it isn't the main method of software distribution. I've found everything I needed at Softpedia.
Apple wisely ditched the shared library system in favor of application independence. The MacPorts project is a community effort to make compiling open source Unix utilities easier for users.
It's no more efficient. It's just less work due to using more popular platforms.
There *could* be greater compatibility across distros just as there is compatibility across different versions of Windows. Even if the distros followed a very basic common library that would cut down the repackaging time immensely. It's an inefficient system from a software engineering perspective. Even if Windows and OSX didn't exist it would still be inefficient since there is so much redundant work.




Member since:
2006-01-02
??? The same thing gets done for those platforms. Have you never used a ports system on OS X, or various native FOSS ports? They get OS-specific packages, just the same.
It's no more efficient. It's just less work due to using more popular platforms.